1.2 Million Music Swindlers Adopt Radiohead

• Kerri, I guess the most appropriate response to you is, what does paying-whatever-you-think-is-reasonable-for-mp3s do for the little, locally-owned record stores who only sell physical albums? Even if the band is distributing the boxset/LP records themselves via internet orders, what\'s the likelihood that it\'ll be carried in retail stores? I applaud what they\'re doing, since they didn\'t have anything or anyone holding them back, but when everyone follows suit, then what?

• i love the new record and am eager for the bonus tracks that will be included with the box set, which i had no problem shelling out the dough for.<br /> radiohead is doing it the right way. i am impressed with this campaign, which seems to be well planned and, thus far, very well executed.<br /> they are doing big things for the future of the music business with their efforts.

• can you actually tell the difference between 160k and higher bitrates? for most people and most music it\'s hardly distinguishable, unless they\'re using incredibly high quality audio equipment (which they aren\'t).

• to me in rainbows sounds more straightforward and approachable than anything they\'ve done in the past decade, which is not to say it is any less adventurous. to the contrary, tracks like house of cards and videotape show the band at their minimalist best. it takes true skill and experience to play with such beautiful restraint, to blend the experimental elements so seamlessly to enhance the song, rather than to draw attention to its presence. plus, thom yorke\'s voice has never sounded better. the one thing i do miss, however, is the cohesiveness of the album as a whole. maybe because it was made with the knowledge that it most likely would be downloaded and placed in people\'s ipod\'s, scrambled out of order from the original track list, the songs on in rainbows feel like separate entities. 10 singles rather than one album. maybe it\'s not such a band thing, more a sign of our times?

• to me in rainbows sounds more straightforward and approachable than anything they\'ve done in the past decade, which is not to say it is any less adventurous. to the contrary, tracks like house of cards and videotape show the band at their minimalist best. it takes true skill and experience to play with such beautiful restraint, to blend the experimental elements so seamlessly to enhance the song, rather than to draw attention to its presence. plus, thom yorke\'s voice has never sounded better. the one thing i do miss, however, is the cohesiveness of the album as a whole. maybe because it was made with the knowledge that it most likely would be downloaded and placed in people\'s ipod\'s, scrambled out of order from the original track list, the songs on in rainbows feel like separate entities. 10 singles rather than one album. maybe it\'s not such a band thing, more a sign of our times?

• Nice comparisons, Mike. But I\'ll disagree that everything Radiohead did after OK Computer was equivalent to Zooropa! Please! I really love the Bends, but for different reasons that I love Kid A/Amnesiac. These two periods of Radiohead are completely different bands...with time, things change. I heard Kid A probably a year after it was released (Maybe it was the fact that my friends played OK Computer to death and I really didn\'t want to hear Radiohead again.) But when I did, I was blown away. They were like a totally different band... I think In Rainbows falls more in line with Kid A, as it\'s Radiohead again reinventing themselves. The rock is great, but I like the pretty, experimental shit too.

• I look at \"The Bends\" as Radiohead\'s \"Joshua Tree,\" \"OK Computer\" as their \"Achtung Baby,\" and everything since as their Fat Elvis, Zoo TV period (although I haven\'t heard the new stuff yet). That\'s their right as artists, but I\'d love to hear them go back and rock a little again.

TotalComments: 7